Disabled woman wins right to challenge 'illegal' Post Office closures » Communities » 24dash.com

A severely disabled woman was given the go-ahead today to seek a court ruling that the ongoing closure of local post offices was unlawfully sanctioned without proper regard to the rules against disability discrimination.

A High Court judge granted Judy Brown, of Hastings, East Sussex, permission to seek a judicial review of decisions made by the Government and the Post Office to axe thousands of post offices - including her local Old Town branch in Hastings - claiming they discriminate against her and other disabled people.

Mrs Brown, of Rock-A-Nore Road, Hastings, claims that Business Secretary John Hutton - now overseeing the highly-controversial closure programme of 2,500 post offices - acted unlawfully by exempting the Post Office from laws requiring public bodies to promote equality for the disabled.

Mr Justice Davis said post offices formed an important part of the social fabric of communities, but whether it was desirable for them to close was not the sole question.

Fair-minded people would recognise that something had to be done when the post office system was losing £4 million a week.

The judge said there were forceful arguments against Mrs Brown's case, but he had "with some reluctance" decided to grant permission on the basis that she had "just about enough" grounds for argument.

The court heard that Mrs Brown used Old Town post office for banking, payment of bills, shopping, correspondence and presents for grandchildren.

She was unable to visit more distant post offices.

Although she was hoping that the Old Town branch would not close, her court action was aimed not at stopping closures or reversing previous closure decisions, but at making sure future decisions were made fairly and lawfully.

Her claim is strongly contested by the Post Office and the departments for Work and Pensions and Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Michael Fordham QC, for the Post Office, said today that social need had to be balanced against commercial sustainability.

On a strictly commercial basis, only 4,000 of the countrywide network of 14,000 branches would be sustainable.

A decision had been taken, after full consultation, to close 2,500 - not the 10,000 which would require closure on a purely commercial basis.

The Department for Work and Pensions has pointed out that the Post Office is still bound by the Disability Discrimination Act and had not been exempted from the Disability Equality Duty.

The exemption was from the specific reporting requirements set out in the regulations.

No date has been set for the full hearing of the case.

Mrs Brown's husband, Jonathan Coe, said later: "Neither the Government nor the Post Office seem to understand why retaining local post offices is so important to those who are disabled and elderly, particularly those on low incomes and those who do not have access to cars and to the internet.

"In Sussex the so-called 'consultation' resulted in over 6,000 objections.

"In addition, Postwatch, the independent postal services watchdog, were so concerned about the proposals they requested a review of eight of the most controversial closure decisions. But none of this has had the slightest impact. Sussex is still set to lose the same 49 post office branches that were initially proposed for closure.

"Our local post office is being closed even though it is used by over 1,000 people per week and makes a profit.

"In response to our complaints, the best the Post Office has come up with is a tentative proposal for a limited range of post office services to be provided by a local retailer once our branch has closed.

"But why spend tens of thousands of pounds closing our post office in the first place if there is such a high demand for the services it provides?

"And what about the thousands of branches being closed across the country where no replacement services are being offered and where disabled and elderly people are now finding it impossible to travel to other branches?"